I've seen (a lot of, not just a select few) benchmarks that put a 2.8 GHz Celeron processor roughly on par with a 1.6 GHz Duron (~£35) in terms of performance. I.e., the Celeron is an awful processor, both in terms of performance and in terms of value. Even worse is the likelyhood that your system is using integrated graphics, and taking more memory bandwidth away from the processor because of that.
But it is good that you did a full application benchmark, a compilation, rather than rely on dodgy benchmarking software that isn't valid these days.
Compilation can be disk bound ... of course you can work around this by doing it in a RAM disk on the Amiga ... if you have enough RAM anyway.
I expect you would get twice the performance from a top of the range processor (Athlon 64 FX-53, P4EE, etc) and near that from better value high performance processors (Athlon 64, P4).
